Infections After Adoption of Antibiogram-directed Prophylaxis and Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion for Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has significantly decreased the morbidity associated with radical cystectomy. However, infectious complications including sepsis, urinary tract (UTIs), wound (WIs), and intra-abdominal (AIs) infections remain common. To assess whether intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) and antibiogram-directed antimicrobial prophylaxis would decrease infections after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing RARC between 2014 and 2022 at a tertiary care institution, identifying two groups based on adherence to a prospectively implemented modified ERAS protocol for RARC: modified-ERAS-ICUD and antibiogram-directed ampicillin-sulbactam, gentamicin, and fluconazole prophylaxis were utilized (from January 2019 to present time), and unmodified-ERAS-extracorporeal urinary diversion (UD) and guideline-recommended cephalosporin-based prophylaxis regimen were utilized (from November 2014 to June 2018). Patients receiving other prophylaxis regimens were excluded. ICUD and antibiogram-directed infectious prophylaxis. The primary outcome was UTIs within 30 and 90 d postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were WIs, AIs, and sepsis within 30 and 90 d postoperatively, and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) within 90 d postoperatively. A total of 396 patients were studied (modified-ERAS: 258 [65.2%], unmodified-ERAS: 138 [34.8%]). UD via a neobladder was more common in the modified-ERAS cohort; all other intercohort demographic differences were not statistically different. Comparing cohorts, modified-ERAS had significantly reduced rates of 30-d (7.8% vs 15.9%, p = 0.027) and 90-d UTIs (11.2% vs 25.4%, p = 0.001), and 30-d WIs (1.2% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001); neither group had a WI after 30 d. Rates of AIs, sepsis, and CDI did not differ between groups. On multivariate regression, the modified-ERAS protocol correlated with a reduced risk of UTIs and WIs (all p < 0.01). The primary limitation is the retrospective study design. Utilization of ICUD and antibiogram-based prophylaxis correlates with significantly decreased UTIs and WIs after RARC. In this study of infections after robotic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer, we found that intracorporeal (performed entirely inside the body) urinary diversion and an institution-specific antibiogram-directed antibiotic prophylaxis regimen led to fewer urinary tract infections and wound infections at our institution.

Rich JM ，Garden EB ，Arroyave JS ，Elkun Y ，Ranti D ，Pfail JL ，Klahr R ，Omidele OO ，Adams-Sommer V ，Patel G ，Schaefer SH ，Brown C ，Badani K ，Lavallee E ，Mehrazin R ，Attalla K ，Waingankar N ，Wiklund P ，Sfakianos JP ... -  《European Urology Focus》

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of LBP-EC01, a CRISPR-Cas3-enhanced bacteriophage cocktail, in uncomplicated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia coli (ELIMINATE): the randomised, open-label, first part of a two-part phase 2 trial.

The rate of antibiotic resistance continues to grow, outpacing small-molecule-drug development efforts. Novel therapies are needed to combat this growing threat, particularly for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic use and associated antibiotic resistance. LBP-EC01 is a novel, genetically enhanced, six-bacteriophage cocktail developed by Locus Biosciences (Morrisville, NC, USA) to address UTIs caused by Escherichia coli, regardless of antibiotic resistance status. In this first part of the two-part phase 2 ELIMINATE trial, we aimed to define a dosing regimen of LBP-EC01 for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs that could advance to the second, randomised, controlled, double-blinded portion of the study. This first part of ELIMINATE is a randomised, uncontrolled, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in six private clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were female by self-identification, aged between 18 years and 70 years, and had an uncomplicated UTI at the time of enrolment, as well as a history of at least one drug-resistant UTI caused by E coli within the 12 months before enrolment. Participants were initially randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio into three treatment groups, but this part of the trial was terminated on the recommendation of the safety review committee after a non-serious tolerability signal was observed based on systemic drug exposure. A protocol update was then implemented, comprised of three new treatment groups. Groups A to C were dosed with intraurethral 2 × 1012 plaque-forming units (PFU) of LBP-EC01 on days 1 and 2 by catheter, plus one of three intravenous doses daily on days 1-3 of LBP-EC01 (1 mL of 1 × 1010 PFU intravenous bolus in group A, 1 mL of 1 × 109 PFU intravenous bolus in group B, and a 2 h 1 × 1011 PFU intravenous infusion in 100 mL of sodium lactate solution in group C). In all groups, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; 160 mg and 800 mg) was given twice daily on days 1-3. The primary outcome was the level of LBP-EC01 in urine and blood across the treatment period and over 48 h after the last dose and was assessed in patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who received at least one dose of LBP-EC01 and had concentration-time data available throughout the days 1-3 dosing period (pharmacokinetic population). Safety, a secondary endpoint, was assessed in enrolled patients who received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). As exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints, we assessed E coli levels in urine and clinical symptoms of UTI in patients with at least 1·0 × 105 colony-forming units per mL E coli in urine at baseline who took at least one dose of study drug and completed their day 10 test-of-cure assessment (pharmacodynamic-evaluable population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05488340, and is ongoing. Between Aug 22, 2022, and Aug 28, 2023, 44 patients were screened for eligibility, and 39 were randomly assigned (ITT population). Initially, eight participants were assigned to the first three groups. After the protocol was updated, 31 participants were allocated into groups A (11 patients), B (ten patients), and C (ten patients). One patient in group C withdrew consent on day 2 for personal reasons, but as she had received the first dose of the study drug was included in the modified ITT population. Maximum urine drug concentrations were consistent across intraurethral dosing, with a maximum mean concentration of 6·3 × 108 PFU per mL (geometric mean 8·8 log10 PFU per mL and geometric SD [gSD] 0·3). Blood plasma level of bacteriophages was intravenous dose-dependent, with maximum mean concentrations of 4·0 × 103 (geometric mean 3·6 log10 PFU per mL [gSD 1·5]) in group A, 2·5 × 103 (3·4 log10 PFU per mL [1·7]) in group B, and 8·0 × 105 (5·9 log10 PFU per mL [1·4]) in group C. No serious adverse events were observed. 44 adverse events were reported across 18 (46%) of the 39 participants in the safety population, with more adverse events seen with higher intravenous doses. Three patients in groups 1 to 3 and one patient in group C, all of whom received 1 × 1011 LBP-EC01 intravenously, had non-serious tachycardia and afebrile chills after the second intravenous dose. A rapid reduction of E coli in urine was observed by 4 h after the first treatment and maintained at day 10 in all 16 evaluable patients; these individuals had complete resolution of UTI symptoms by day 10. A regimen consisting of 2 days of intraurethral LBP-EC01 and 3 days of concurrent intravenous LBP-EC01 (1 × 1010 PFU) and oral TMP-SMX twice a day was well tolerated, with consistent pharmacokinetic profiles in urine and blood. LBP-EC01 and TMP-SMX dosing resulted in a rapid and durable reduction of E coli, with corresponding elimination of clinical symptoms in evaluable patients. LBP-EC01 holds promise in providing an alternative therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, with further testing of the group A dosing regimen planned in the controlled, double-blind, second part of ELIMINATE. Federal funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Kim P ，Sanchez AM ，Penke TJR ，Tuson HH ，Kime JC ，McKee RW ，Slone WL ，Conley NR ，McMillan LJ ，Prybol CJ ，Garofolo PM ... -  《-》

Ceftazidime with avibactam for treating severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections: technology evaluation to inform a novel subscription-style payment model.

Harnan S ，Kearns B ，Scope A ，Schmitt L ，Jankovic D ，Hamilton J ，Srivastava T ，Hill H ，Ku CC ，Ren S ，Rothery C ，Bojke L ，Sculpher M ，Woods B ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Does the Application of Topical Vancomycin Reduce Surgical Site Infections in Spine Surgery? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent a major challenge in spine surgery, leading to severe morbidity, mortality, and increased costs. The local application of antibiotics, particularly vancomycin, has emerged as a potential strategy. Individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have disagreed about the efficacy of topical vancomycin in preventing SSIs after spine surgery, and so a meta-analysis that pools data from those RCTs might be helpful to inform clinicians' decisions on the topic. This meta-analysis of RCTs asked: Does intrawound topical vancomycin reduce the risk of (1) SSIs, (2) deep SSIs, and (3) superficial SSIs in patients undergoing spine surgery? PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up through March 13, 2024 (search performed on March 13, 2024). Inclusion criteria consisted of English or non-English-language RCTs comparing the implementation of topical vancomycin in spine surgery to its nonuse and assessing its efficacy in preventing SSI, while exclusion criteria consisted of nonrandomized comparative studies, single-arm noncomparative studies, comparative studies based on national databases or from the same center as other included studies, studies posted to preprint servers, studies reporting incomplete/nonrelevant outcomes, and studies adding another SSI preventive measure. The studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Q tests and I 2 statistics. We used a random-effects model when considerable heterogeneity was observed (all SSIs, deep SSIs); otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used (all SSIs subanalysis, superficial SSIs). Furthermore, the fragility index was calculated for each of the assessed outcomes when there was no difference between the two groups to assess how many patients were needed to experience the outcomes for a difference to become present. The studied outcomes were the risks of SSIs, deep SSIs, and superficial SSIs. Deep SSIs were defined by the included trials as SSIs underneath the fascia, otherwise they were considered superficial. Six RCTs representing a total of 2140 patients were included, with 1053 patients in the vancomycin group and 1087 in the control group. Using an alpha of 0.05, our meta-analysis had 80% power to detect a risk difference of 1.5% for the primary outcome between patients who did and did not receive vancomycin. The age of the patients in the vancomycin group ranged from 37 to 52 years, while the age in the control group ranged from 34 to 52 years. The surgical procedures consisted of both instrumented and noninstrumented spinal procedures. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was either low or unclear, with none of the studies having a high risk of bias in any of the assessed categories (selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias). We found no difference in the risk of SSI between the vancomycin and control groups (3.0% [32 of 1053] versus 3.9% [42 of 1087], relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.35 to 1.57]; p = 0.43). Ten additional patients (4.8% infection risk) in the control group would need to experience an SSI for a difference to be observed between the two groups. We found no difference in the risk of deep SSI between the vancomycin and control groups (1.8% [15 of 812] versus 2.7% [23 of 860], relative risk 0.69 [95% CI 0.24 to 2.00]; p = 0.50). Seven additional patients (3.5% infection risk) in the control group would need to experience a deep SSI for a difference to be observed between the two groups. We found no difference in the risk of superficial SSI between the vancomycin and control groups (1.0% [6 of 620] versus 1.4% [9 of 662], relative risk 0.68 [95% CI 0.25 to 1.89]; p = 0.46). Seven additional patients (2.4% infection risk) in the control group would need to experience a superficial SSI for a difference to be observed between the two groups. This meta-analysis of randomized trials examining use of topical vancomycin in spine surgery failed to show efficacy in reducing infection, and thus we do not recommend routine use of topical vancomycin for this indication. Future large-scale trials would be needed if surgeons believe that between-group differences smaller than those for which we were powered here (this meta-analysis had 80% power to detect a between-group difference of 1.5% in infection risk) are clinically important, and large database surveys may be informative in terms of assessing for postoperative adverse events associated with the use of vancomycin powder. Level I, therapeutic study.

Daher M ，Nassar JE ，McDonald CL ，Diebo BG ，Daniels AH ... -  《-》